Forum Moderators: open
[google.com...]
In the left column is a sad story email Google received from a limousine service operator named Frank who got caught in a linking scam. New, I believe.
Jeez, couldn't they have found some molester who'd used a meta tag once and related that to SEO as well?
=========================================================
Hopefully this will encourage a few more people to report the bad guys.
Shak
The biggest threat Google has to contend with are schemes to artificially skew Page Rank. That's what I've personally seen with some of the "savvy" SEO'd sites I've come across, and is probably the one thing that's a priority with Google protecting the continuing integrity of their search.
Those "get high Google rankings with link popularity" is being used by many to capitalize on the unwary. I had a web developer tell me just that, who put an entire site into a cgi-bin that was dynamic. He said rankings have got nothing to do with on site factors any more, it's all link popularity.
One of the people I work with now came to me from one of those people who promote sites through constant submissions and setting up links - and never touched the site at all, including never mentioning the fact that the entire site had LONG dynamic URLs that could never rank. That service cost well over $100 a month, just to set up links, including free ad sites and FFA's. That SEO's site has a permanent PR0 penalty and they're still peddling that service.
There's a myth being perpetrated that has nothing whatsoever to do with what legitimate SEO really is and essentially, people are being defrauded. That can give all of us a bad name, even those who actually DO SEO according to guidelines.
The fact of the matter is that Frank the limo guy got scammed, and what's really sad is that some - probably a few - of those who sell those services actually believe their own misinformation. The rest are, imho, just thieves preying on the innocence and weakness of an uneducated public.
IMHO, Google publishing that serves an innocent public while defending the integrity of their search, and serves our best interests as well if we're legitimate.
[edited by: Marcia at 10:37 pm (utc) on Dec. 16, 2002]
Excellent idea, atadams. Send me the cash, I will funnel it to him. ;)
Google is my best buddy. Visitors find my sites, click on links, and buy from my advertisers/merchants. I make money. However, I have come to this; it is better to play by the rules. Don't think I am beginning to soften up my stand on sissy spam reporters, but I have changed my tactics.
Excellent idea, atadams. Send me the cash, I will funnel it to him.
You're not the one he hired and got him banned, are you?
You old snake oil salesman, you...
;)
In my opinion Google posting that kind of propaganda is extremely bad taste, specially when so many of us here live from websites and SEO.
How Webmaster World's members earn their living is immaterial to Google and--more important--to Google's users.
Accurate search results are what count. Google's "propaganda" is obviously intended to foster quality search results by encouraging Website owners to avoid SEO tactics and firms that threaten the integrity of Google's SERPs. Why is that in bad taste?
Any person reading that page for the first time without any prior knowledge of seo (which I suspect will be the majority of readers) will be justifiably put off employing any seo company if they give credance to the article.
It is written in such a way that many readers will conclude that seo is purely a world of charlatans and con artists. Whilst unfortuntely there is an element of truth in this in the sense that many charlatans do exist, this applies to just about any industry you'd care to mention. There are many good seos out there (many of whom reside in this forum), complying with guidelines set by the ses themselves and working hard to promote their clients' sites. This article only serves to damage the reputation of ALL seos, including the good ones.
A more objective and responsible approach would have been to write a balanced description of seo providers and what they do - and then go on to sesnibly warn of the techniques that some dodgy firms employ.
Don't get me wrong - I don't disagree with almost any of the content that google has written (apart from the absurd advice to demand a "money back guarantee" for services rendered) - it's more what hasn't been said that concerns me.
The words that are not on the page often say just as much (if not more) than those that are!
PS - Good seos do not desire to threaten the integrity of search results - only to improve them.
I was raised in Texas and they taught me if you don't beat them you'll get beat...
That kind of attitude won't give Texans a good name, never mind SEOs. :-)
Europeforvisitors one day said it was "social responsibility" to help Google maintain a sane result page, what a joke.
You're misrepresenting what I said. "Social responsibility" means creating sites that are good for users and the Web. That also happens to be an easy way to avoid problems with Google. But satisfying Google's requirements isn't the reason for behaving like a responsible adult.
It's like parking: A responsible person won't park across two spaces in a supermarket parking lot. His motive isn't to help the supermarket get richer by cramming more cars into the lot; he simply has respect for the common good. If the supermarket profits from his socially responsible behavior, is that bad? And if the greedy guy who hogged two spaces or parked illegally in the handicapped spot finds that his car was towed to the impound lot, whose fault is that?
BTW, I agree with Lavapies that "Good seos do not desire to threaten the integrity of search results - only to improve them." The challenge for prospective SEO clients is to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Google's article helps them to do that. (Although I agree with many of you that the "money-back guarantee" statement is over the top. If that rule were applied to ad agencies, there wouldn't be an agency left in the business 12 months from now!)
Well, it's worked all my life and my name is OK. And I guess the Texan reputation isn't bad either considering Texas alone is as big, respected and rich as most european nations...
>You're misrepresenting what I said. "Social responsibility" means creating sites that are good for users and the Web.
Sure. My users like my sites or I wouldn't see about 30.000 of them each day. Good for the Web? I guess so, the web is made of users.
> But satisfying Google's requirements isn't the reason for behaving like a responsible adult.
Funny stuff. But I'm a responsible guy europe...Google came into my life like 2 years ago, by then I have paid about a lottery prize in taxes and I help the poor kids in my neighborhood church....
> It's like parking: A responsible person won't park across two spaces in a supermarket parking lot. His motive isn't to help the supermarket get richer by cramming more cars into the lot; he simply has respect for the common good.
Consider this :"Park Wrong and We Might Do *Something* To Your Automobile" (Coz that's what I know, the rest is black box debugging feeding Google some stuff and seeing what comes out - that is, guessing and hoping for the next update.)
- What is wrong?
- What is it they'll do?
- How do you recover your automobile?
- Who audits this authority?
- What if someone parked right and Something was done anyway?
- What if this authority suddenly feels bigwheels are unacceptable?
- What if eighteenwheelers were allowed and my VW Rabbit wasn't?
- What if special parking spaces were sold next to the regular and the regular ones were suddenly shuffled around without explanations all the time just to freak you out?
- What if the eighteenwheelers employed all the things the supermarket considered wrong and nothing was done to them?
> And if the greedy guy who hogged two spaces or parked illegally in the handicapped spot finds that his car was towed to the impound lot, whose fault is that?
Again you confuse the Law and Google's TOS. Nobody is breaking the Law here. The Law says that kind of parking will earn you a nice fat parking ticket.
Orwell section: What if all of the sudden you had Microsoft policemen patrolling your illegal Java console built into your car's computer? Java is illegal within Microsoft but Java ain't breaking the Law....same with this discussion, I have Google police telling me how I should link and what color I should use and what is relevant and what is not around in the web.
>The challenge for prospective SEO clients is to separate the good guys from the bad guys.
And Google is telling the world every freaking SEO and all their friends are BAD and how they were able to lead a limo site to ruins when that site messed with Google and how tough Google is on the people in my profession....
It's like hackers and crackers. No matter how much you tell the world HACKER = GOOD ¦ CRACKER = BAD when you say "HACKER" 99% of people immediately think "VANDAL". That Google page, read it like you've never been to this forum or dealt with engines, see what I mean? We're all suddenly BAAAAD.
Europe I understand your concern, I really do - honest. And I understand where you're coming from. But I'm a professional, I live from this - the moment I surrender and say "OK Google, I'm using pink links on blue background from now on to make you happy" is the day I start my new job with a real boss and 9 to 5 work hours.
As a professional I cannot accept Google's authority to decide what is good and what is not.
As a professional I cannot simply have to guess what is that'll happen to my sites. If Google wants my sympathy they'll have to be real clear about the rules and give me precise instructions, prices, fees and fines, procedures, possible penalties and every detail of conforming 100% to their rules.
As a professional I cannot sit and watch Google control the Web and tell the world pinkwidgets.com is better than pink-widgets-bunny.com.
If Google wants 100% of the web they gotta take us webmasters seriously. Users make google popular but webmasters make the web. Treating us like kids and having us guess their rules and then posting threats on their webmaster pages is their end in sight.
Every professional in this business needs 4 to 5 competing search engines, the Web must remain free and unbiased which is not happening, adwords DO compete with Google SERPS and that makes them biased whether we accept it or not, and no matter how much Googleguy tells me adwords don't interfere with results ever since adwords came along the results became everflux, fluxyrandom, polypink, and ALL OF THE SUDDEN the banning of "SPAMMY" sites GOT SOOOO STRICT!
So that's my view, Texans do sound harsh sometimes but I'm hard working(16 hrs/day avg on this business, 7 days/week) and I won't take it lightly if Google decides to mess with my pages because their bright staff thought I was feeding it inappropriate links or because they came up with a dingly Choogle content engine that took all content sites to ruins and everyone reads their cache and the web is google.
By the way, from what is discussed here my sites are squeaky clean...I use high tech optimization that'll soon be all over the place and named spam coz I don't need adwords to drive me 30k people per day....
Total_Paranoia: I don't love or hate Google my sites were always there and I try my best to pretend Google isn't. One day I loved Altavista and ....
And Google is telling the world every freaking SEO and all their friends are BAD and how they were able to lead a limo site to ruins when that site messed with Google and how tough Google is on the people in my profession....
In the very first paragraph of Google's "Search Engine Optimizers" page, the GoogleAuthor explains:
"SEO is an abbreviation for 'search engine optimizer.' Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted. However, there are a few unethical SEOs who have given the industry a black eye through their overly aggressive marketing efforts and their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results."
That seems pretty fair to me. I suppose that, if Google had wanted to, they could have included more detailed examples of what they regard as being "useful services for website owners." That would have achieved two things:
1) It would have made SEOs happier.
2) More important, it would have helped prospective SEO clients understand what to expect (not just what to avoid) when hiring a search consultant.
Of course, if Google had included a detailed list of acceptable things that SEOs can do to to make pages more spider-friendly, SEOs might be complaining that Google was giving away advice that clients should have to pay for. :-)
OK psoares, you say you look at Google from a professional view and I do as well but as a user, google is still returning the most relevant results. I rarely use any other search engine.
